Posted
by
kdawsonon Saturday February 28, 2009 @05:18PM
from the forty-cubits dept.

Peace Corps Online writes "In the 1980s a deadly fungus called chytrid appeared in Central America and began moving through mountain streams, killing as many as 8 out of 10 frogs and extinguishing some species entirely. (The fungus has little effect on any other vertebrates.) Now a returned Peace Corps volunteer and her husband have opened the El Valle Amphibian Conservation Center in western Panama to house more than 600 frogs as chytrid cuts a lethal path through the region. Experts agree that the only hope of saving some of the more endangered, restricted-range species is to collect animals from remaining wild populations, establish captive breeding programs, and be prepared to conduct reintroduction projects in the future. But before reintroduction can even begin, scientists must find some way to overcome the chytrid in native habitats using vaccines, breeding for resistance, or genetic engineering of the fungus. Conservationists are budgeting for 25 years of captive breeding, long enough, they believe, to allow some response to chytrid to be found. 'There are more species in need of rescue than there are resources to rescue them,' says Amphibian Ark's program director. 'When you're talking about insidious threats like disease or climate change, threats that can't be mitigated in the wild, there's simply no alternative.'"

I understand that we dont want frogs to die off in that region but why mess with nature. If we vaccinate these frogs and there numbers swell; what are those consequences going to be? Im sure that the frogs will adapt to the environment and overcome.

Wacko nature lovers aside, but what you talk about "evolutionists" is pure rubbish. Evolution is a phenomenon, a force of nature, just like gravity. By your logic, if one is interested in natural processes, one should not fly, because it is against gravity...

No, it's you who is putting evolution on some kind of pedestal, saying it's something we shouldn't mess with it. Our whole culture and civilization is based on messing with evolution! Or how do you think our current crops and livestock became like they

You do realise that when you look at the species around you, all you see are winners, right? During billions of years of evolution, millions of species have gone extinct. There is no magic that protects us or the frogs from extinction. Sometimes evolution saves your ass, and sometimes it kills you. Saying 'nature always finds a way' because the species around you are not extinct is comparable to saying 'I am immortal' just because you've

And because reality is that evolution is a cruel, horrible game involving more death than anyone can tolerate.... and therefore it is something that should, especially when it affects humans, be stopped at any cost.

Why not extinguish species if we can?That's the same kind of question.Personally I believe it is a pointless exercise to spend some of our limited resources, so we can delay a natural process that has no direct impact on us. We shouldn't be playing god unless we really have to. A stable ecosystem is based on extinction-level events happening.

The thing about complex systems such as the ecosystem is that something that has no direct impact may have some indirect impact that may just be even worse, maybe not.

My brain is still in conflict with itself with the pointlessness of rescuing (and selectively eradicating) a species, however. We don't know if the extinction of this particular species would be a boon or not. It might not even matter, but wouldn't it be better to maintain the status quo and eradicate the fungus? At least we know, more or l

Because these frogs are going to be extinct anyway, once the next meteorite hits. Every time there's a major extinction event, 95-99% of the planet's animals get killed. We're not saving the frogs; we're just postponing the inevitable.

>>Which is why we go to the doctor. You make it sound like postponing the inevitable is a bad thing.

It is a bad thing when you're wasting resources that could be better spent (like paying off the $130,000 per home U.S. debt). Also you presume too much: I don't go to the doctor. I'm going to die anyway, and now is just a good a time to die as any. ("Today is a good day to die.") I don't want to be an old man who ____

It is our nature to interfere with nature, and who are we to interfere with nature? Therefore, in order to be true to our nature (and therefore not interfere with nature) we must surely interfere with nature!

Not quite true! It's very funny and I hate to be serious when someone is genuinely funny, but it's also untrue.

You do not necessarily go against "nature" due only to other emotional drives imposed by instinct. That's what's so cool about being self-aware AND capable of intelligence (universal logic). It's almost painfully obvious but difficult to state at the same time: the brain is capable of regulating your conscious activity due to impulses based on rationale that is irrelevant to human beings altogether

"Oh sure, I'd love to help you -- and others -- out with that nasty bout of flu you're suffering from this year, but because Herbert Spencer's saying [wikipedia.org] is now an immutable Law of Nature for...um, some reason...hopefully humanity will evolve its way out of this faster than the virus does."
[[Doctor pats patient on the back]]
"Good luck next life...if that exists!"
[[Doctor laughs evilly]]

amen, but don't you know that environmentalists these days seem more interested in empathetic selection than natural selection, eg survival of what I love most, not survival of the fittest. All they are doing is keeping the inevitable away, if the weak frogs are not killed off then what happens when we are not around to save them next time?

Humans are virtually incapable of making realistic cost-benefit analyses of these type of situations. There is so much genetic material phasing into and out of existence, human beings could not begin to comprehend it all. However, a single species is easy enough to comprehend, and so by being considered at all it gets a fairly disproportionate representation in the grand scheme of earth's ecosystem. (and I guess the 'conservationists' are not so sentimental about fungus as frogs)

I think it is interesting that their long-term solution is either to attack the fungus (basically performing a total reversal of natural selection through human intervention) or to preserve the frogs and provide the frogs with some kind of immunity. Of course, nature *already has* an paradigm for immunity, the principle mechanism of which is to let all the organisms that lack intrinsic biological defenses to be killed off.

Good observation. Who's to say the fungus is worthy of death? Perhaps this stuff will eventually be the cure for cancer, to be filtered and purified around the year 2150, but those stupid "primitives" of the 2000s destroyed it.

It is not wrong to fight death. After all, you're statement basically states that any artificial immunity, both against physical problems and against other species is wrong.

Here is a thought experiment. Imagine that starting now all deaths on Earth are permanently stopped, and all life forms remain healthy and at their peak age. What do you think the planet will look like in a week, in a month, in a year?

The nature already produces more insects and animals than their habitat can carry. The excess popul

Save the frogs, kill the fungus! Yes, trust us, frogs are cuter than fungus, they will clearly be more beneficial to our species than a new fungus ever could hope to be.

Besides, if we do nothing, the surviving 20% of frogs will follow their primal instincts and repopulate themselves! And what's worse, the new generations will be immune to this harmful fungus!! The inhumanity!

I guess the actual answer would be that these people don't want to and, having studied the issue beyond just a slashdot blurb, think it's a good idea. Or maybe it's a big scam. Could be either way really.

At least one obvious pragmatic reason to save them: we might find a use for them. We already use frogs in a lot of bio research. In establishing captive breeding programs we might find that one of these more exotic species is actually better than our current model organisms at some things. We might fin

Why not leave nature to its own devices? Survival of the fittest, and all that kinda stuff...

We're part of nature, so even if we mess with it, it's still "natural" in the grand scheme of evolution. If those frogs that might be saved from extinction are saved, then it means they're fit enough to survive, even if they utilize humans to survive.

Wether we humans should or should not do something, now that's a valid question. But "it's against natural order of things" is not an argument against it, because there's no such "natural order". There's current natural order of things which involves these frog

This is not natural:"Due to its extensive use in obstetrics and research, it appears Xenopus laevis has carried B. dendrobatidis with it out of Africa to all over the world, causing chytridomycosis and eventually death in native frogs naÃve to the fungi."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_clawed_froghttp://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no12/03-0804.htm

Probably yes. If only because the Gazelles are likely to taste better to humans than the cheetahs.

(Providing a nice herd for hunting is one of the primary reasons for wolf control in the somewhat less populated areas of North America...the other is that lots of people want to live by trees and grass, but not by big dangerous animals)

Really, I don't see the problem with getting sentimental about nature, as long as it doesn't cost a lot. It makes more sense than getting sentimental about Paris Hilton or Britn

This is pure sentimentalization of nature. Are we going to protect gazelles from cheetahs next?

If the gazelles are likely to go extinct, then I suppose it would be a good idea... Also good for the cheetah, preserving one of it's prey species.

Letting species go extinct erases parts of biosphere forever. Now of course new stuff evolves all the time to replace the erased. But the thing is, we're in the middle of a mass extinction event. Currently things are being erased much faster than new stuff is evolving, overall. So trying to slow down the extinction rate sounds rather a good idea to me... Total co

Just because 80+ pct are killed off by the fungus doesn't mean that they can't adapt and recover.

I thought the point was that, in this case, the people observing think they won't be able to adapt and recover. The summary says, "extinguishing some species entirely" meaning it's already killed off some species that didn't adapt (to this fungus carried from Africa by humans).

It was a human accident (not malice).

Now the question is, do we sit back and watch them die or do we try to save some of them. When you spill wine on your friend's carpet, do you watch the stain soak in or do you take some re

Preserving species that are not fit for their environment seems the wrong approach to me. The chance of ever totally eradicating this fungus is nil, and if the most numerous amphibian population around is a re-seeded susceptible population you get to re-play the whole scenario in another 25 or 100 years.

Even trying to bread a frog with some resistance is at best an artificial solution, and one that historically has never worked on any grand scale.

Nature is not so fragile that the loss of said frogs will not be offset the the advance of some niche dweller to fill the gap.

We can't even manage our own affairs. It seems unwise and premature to step in and take over from mother nature.

The problem is that we could be causing this disease to spread. One reason which has been put forward is that frog researchers who go from country to country are spreading diseases. So saving frogs in this instance may be more a case of fixing the damage we have done.

Yes, researchers likely have caused the damage, but what people forget is that humans are part of nature.

If the frogs your researching can't handle the act of you researching them then you have just evolved yourself out of a job. These researchers like the frogs in the wild need to adapt, find new work, or perish along with there beloved research subjects.

Yes, researchers likely have caused the damage, but what people forget is that humans are part of nature.

Yes, but if you're going to play that card, then "humans rescuing frogs from disease" is also part of nature.

If the frogs your researching can't handle the act of you researching them then you have just evolved yourself out of a job. These researchers like the frogs in the wild need to adapt, find new work, or perish along with there beloved research subjects.

It is still unproven that researchers were the (only) carriers. Frog eating birds may have spread the fungus as well. It's spread was probably inevitable.

Its also unproven the the "wilderness" needs saving. After all, the next cure for cancer could just as likely be lurking in the species the frogs are suppressing with their voracious appetites, or the species that steps up to fill the frog's niche.

Preserving species that are not fit for their environment seems the wrong approach to me. The chance of ever totally eradicating this fungus is nil, and if the most numerous amphibian population around is a

So we should let all alaskans die, and most of canada ? After all, most of that place would not, without massive human intervention, be habitable for humans.

Perhaps you should terminate civilization ? Force humans, including you of course, to survive without houses, without cities, without walmart, and ab

The point is, it is not inhabitable (for humans) without technological interventions.

Since things like heated homes are obviously interference, artificially keeping the species alive in an area that nature would forbid to them, we should destroy those interventions, by which I mean destroy their houses, cities, roads, cars, and even any fires they may try to make, and "let nature take it's course" (ie. killing probably every last alaskan and the large majority of canadians).

> The point is, it is not inhabitable (for humans) without technological interventions.

Go tell your nonsense to the Eskimo populations.

Ummm, you do know that clothing, houses, harpoons, fishhooks, sleds, and other things like that are, well, TECHNOLOGY?

Alas, it's not true that technology is appropriate only to describe the products of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. We've been doing "technology" since one of our ancestors first banged two rocks together to produce an edge to cut through a deer

Losing a species unbalances nature so horribly it causes a chain reaction that terminates all life. This must be the first example of non-human-influenced extinction. This doesn't make sense; obviously it's a human's fault for bringing the fungus from some other continent, or something. What next? Brining Manbearpig to tropical paradises on oil tankers?

Foreign aid? What about local welfare programs? We already support tons of people who can't support themselves.

And before anyone goes crazy about what I just wrote, I realize that some people are just down on their luck and need a little help. I'm talking about those shiftless bums who just take the free handouts and don't bother trying, or could never support themselves even if they -did- try.

As a side note, I used to spend a lot of time thinking about how society has stopped evolution in humans... But

A cure for chytridiomycosis has already been found. Researchers in New Zealand have found that infected Frogs can be treated with Chloramphenicol. Incredibly cheap to make, effective, and only causes aplastic anemia in 1 in 25,000 to 40,000 humans. What could possibly go wrong? It's not like interfering with nature using chemicals ever has any unintended consequences.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that these nature lovers are hypocrites. There are two things that are certain in life: nature has a way of balancing itself out, and humans have a way to destroy everything they touch. If 8 out of 10 frogs are being killed by this fungus, that's the millenia-old rule of the survival of the fittest. We try to interfere with this impenetrable law, and we end up fucking with something else indirectly.

If no humans existed, the fungus would have killed the frogs, making place for other and new species. That is one way of natural selection.Why do we have animal protection programs in the first place? Because we meddled with nature, and have to fix it.Not because animals are dying.

This is a typical case of forgetting the original intent and blindly following the rules. Even if they are completely contradicting that intent.

Is there really no more need in the world for "trained men and women"?

There is, but most countries have their own trained people these days. If their training doesn't get applied the reasons are most likely political and the Peace Corps can't solve political problems on their own.

It seems to me, that here they are begging money to fight evolution...

Natural selection, not evolution. And people have always been about preventing natural selection. We call it compassion, it's a pretty common trait. I guess it's more comfortable to look at it cynically for some people though.

Aye. And it's not just compassion. Suppose some bacterium mutates and becomes extremely lethal to cows, pigs, chickens, etc., and spreads like crazy, and kills every member of these species on earth. Some loony will shrug and say 'oh, evolution/natural selection, nothing to see here, move along', but it is NOT in our best interests to let these animals go extinct.

Just because evolution is 'natural' doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it when it is screwing us in some way. Dying of appendicitis is natural selection too, yet very few people suffering from such diseases refuse medical attention...

Some loony will shrug and say 'oh, evolution/natural selection, nothing to see here, move along'

Domestic livestock are well... domestic, under our control, kept for our benefit. They are not wild animals... Are you suggesting that we control natural selection for the entire wild world?

Domestic livestock are susceptible to disease because we keep them in confinement, and regularly transport them all over. The alternative is do away with domestic livestock. Which would be a very dangerous step against ev

Did you read the article you fucking dimwit? This is not a Peace Corps project, and the only connection to the Peace Corps is that one of the people doing it used to be a Peace Corps volunteer.

He is allowed to do other things I hope.

Look, I know, being apparently rather stupid and badly educated, you do not like to read articles; I am sure entire articles with all their long paragraphs and sentences and stuff tire you out and are terrible burden upon you. And I am sure it is much easier and more fun to just vent this pent up hatred you have of volunteer organizations. I mean whats not to hate about volunteer organizations -- they try to help people. The bastards.

But you see, if you are going to start flaming on slashdot, you should try very hard to read the article (you can do it, just get plenty of sleep beforehand). You have to do it just to cover your ass. Otherwise you get flamed yourself. Asshole.

But you see, if you are going to start flaming on slashdot, you should try very hard to read the article (you can do it, just get plenty of sleep beforehand). You have to do it just to cover your ass. Otherwise you get flamed yourself. Asshole.

If they fail to adapt quickly enough they will go extinct. Which may very well have negative effects on the ecosystems they live in. Which might cause other species to go extinct. Which might have significant negative effects on the ecosystems they lived in. Repeat.

Biodiversity is nice. While it may be possible for us to live on a planet where the only other species are cows, grass, and trees, I wouldn't want to live in such a world. When there is a significant threat to biodiversity (such as a fungus makin